from the no-monkeys-this-time dept

I guess if you're already trying to misuse trademark law, why not also experiment with misusing copyright law? Divorce & criminal law attorney Michael Pascazi was recently featured on these pages for his highly questionable attempt to trademark "Bitcoin," despite the word being in common usage around the world without any connection to Pascazi. Pascazi jumped into our comments with an extremely dubious explanation for his actions, which was quickly responded to by an actual IP attorney who told him he was wrong. Either way, we had a second post discussing Pascazi's reasoning, and why we believed his trademark theories were incorrect. Pascazi, once again, chose to engage in our comments, somewhat mockingly.

That all took place on July 7th & 8th. Apparently, over that weekend, Pascazi decided he wasn't happy with our reporting or how those discussions went, and decided that he was going to misuse copyright law to try to cause some trouble for us. He sent both us and our webhost a DMCA takedown notice demanding that we take down his "copyrighted works" that were posted on our site (despite the fact that the content he's claiming copyright over isn't actually hosted on our, or our web host's, servers -- a slight technical detail that would be obvious to most observers looking at the page). Actually, he goes a bit further than that, trying weakly to extend the DMCA and copyright law to act as a censor for content he apparently does not like:

I request that you immediately take down the offending works [and] issue a cancellation message for the specified postings...

And what are these "offending works?" Well, looking at the DMCA notice (full notice embedded below), he appears to be claiming that both the header and the footer from his law firm's legal correspondence, as well as the header of Magellan Capital Advisors LLC, are copyrights held by him. If you don't recall, Magellan Capital Advisors was supposedly Pascazi's "client," in the attempt to trademark Bitcoin, and a letter sent from Magellan with the header in question was available on the USPTO website as Pascazi's "evidence" for Magellan's use of "Bitcoin" in commerce. You can see this part of the DMCA notice identifying "the works" here:

Yes, Pascazi appears to be threatening us with a copyright infringement claim for posting two documents on corporate stationery of firms he apparently controls, in which he claims copyright over the headers and (with his law firm) footer of that stationery. I do wonder if the content presented is even copyrightable at all, and whether or not Pascazi has bothered to register them. Most of the header and footer appears to be made up entirely of factual information for which there is no copyright. I certainly don't see enough originality in the content or the presentation to establish a valid copyright. There are the logos in the headers to each page, but one would think that would be covered by trademark, rather than copyright, and there's clearly no violation of trademarks in accurately showing the logo of companies we are discussing.

Even if, somehow, somewhere, Pascazi can get a legitimate copyright on the content in question, he still has no valid legal claim against us. Considering Mr. Pascazi's somewhat confused take on trademark law when it came to Bitcoin, I'm wondering if Mr. Pascazi is simply unfamiliar with the very basics of fair use within copyright law -- and the fact fair use must be taken into account before issuing a DMCA takedown notice.

Needless to say, we believe that we are not infringing the "works" in question in any way, shape or form (and even question whether or not there's a valid copyright at all here) and will not be taking them down, despite Mr. Pascazi's attempt to bully us with a blatant legal threat in the form of a DMCA takedown message. Our lawyer is currently in touch with Pascazi and has been trying to explain all of this to him, while reviewing the potential problems one might face when issuing a bogus DMCA takedown. Since we don't suffer bullying lightly, we also wanted to post this info publicly, so people are aware of what's going on.

from the mock-away dept

We just wrote about how lawyer Michael Pascazi was trying to file for a US trademark on "Bitcoin," which most people agreed was laughable. Making it even more ridiculous was that his attempt to prove use in commerce was apparently to have his wife send a letter to a relative of hers offering to sell some Bitcoins. The whole thing was quite dubious, but Pascazi himself stopped by our comments to elaborate.

First, he claimed that "for strategic reasons," he and his wife had abandoned the US trademark filing... but, at the same time, they've commenced trademark applications in other countries, which have a first to file rule, rather than a first to use:

Simultaneously therewith, trademark applications have begun in those civil law countries, wherein, "first to use" status is not recognized as a defense to trademark registration. These civil law countries, which account for most of the world's population, and land mass, only recognize a "first to file" basis for trademark registration. The penalties for infringing trademarks in those civil law "first to file" countries are as severe as the common law jurisdictions, such as the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, etc., which utilize a "first to use" basis.

Therefore, jumping up and down exhorting that "Bitcoin" has been in use in the USA, or another common law country, since the dark ages is no defense, repeat no defense, to a claim of infringement of a properly registered mark in a "first to file" jurisdiction.

Pretty shameless. He's basically admitting that he has no actual rights to Bitcoin, but he's going to try to use the fact that many countries (especially the EU and India) have a first-to-file system, to take ownership of the word. Thankfully, another lawyer, John William Nelson, who actually is an expert in these areas (Pascazi is not), explained why Pascazi's new, extra slimy, scheme probably won't work either:

Mr. Pascazi does not really understand trademark law, it appears. While he is correct that many civil law countries have a first-to-file process, that does not mean they have no ability to challenge the issuance of the mark.

A trademark must be a source identifier. In other words, Mr. Pascazi's 'client' must be recognized as the source of a product by consumers if the mark Bitcoin is used.

As for enforcing international marks in the U.S., this is not as easily done as Mr. Pascazi would hope. Especially if he is able to obtain a registration abroad on such shaky grounds. It could still be subject to the same cancellation process as a U.S. mark.

The question is whether Mr. Pascazi will truly try and enforce a foreign mark on foreign soil. Paying international lawyers is not cheap.

And will he continue to maintain the mark and defend it against attacks?

from the any-penalties-for-such-filings? dept

The Slashdot report claims that it's the lawyer, Michael S. Pascazi, filing for the trademark, but it's at least a little more complicated. It looks like Pascazi is acting as counsel for Magellan Capital Advisors. However, it does appear that Pascazi may have some further direct connection to Magellan, as the example of "first use" in commerce sent with the trademark filing is a letter from Magellan to some guy (Michel Mouchon) offering to sell "Bitcoin"... and the letter is signed by Celine M. Pascazi, which the Slashdot report says is Michael's wife. Furthermore, Pascazi's law firm has put up a pdf file touting the benefits of Bitcoin, and noting that Bitcoin is pending trademark to Magellan. On top of that, the pdf lists Celine Mouchon Pascazi as working for the Pascazi Law Offices.

Mouchon? Oh wait. Michel Mouchon is the person the original offer was made to... I'm sure that's just a coincidence, right?

Yeah, it's not hard to put two and two together here. I mean, just the fact that they're claiming the first use in commerce was June 22nd of this year should lead to the application not passing the laugh test. But I do wonder, are there penalties for trying to mislead the USPTO in a trademark filing?